SisterSalome

How do your beliefs benefit you and society?

138 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

IOW, you have sold your soul to Satan and have accepted a baby murderer as your God.

Where did that immoral belief come from?

 

Perhaps you missed the part where David committed adultery, and then arranged to kill Uriah in order to steal his wife Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). Being an extreme pacifist, you would likely overlook such things, but fortunately, God required repercussions for the horrible sins David committed... Imo, you wanting to high-five King David for adultery and murder is tantamount to selling your soul to Satan. Where did that immoral belief come from?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Perhaps you missed the part where David committed adultery, and then arranged to kill Uriah in order to steal his wife Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11). Being an extreme pacifist, you would likely overlook such things, but fortunately, God required repercussions for the horrible sins David committed... Imo, you wanting to high-five King David for adultery and murder is tantamount to selling your soul to Satan. Where did that immoral belief come from?  

From your own twisted imagination as you speak of nothing that I indicated I want.

If all you have left is to make up lies my Christian friend, we will not chat much.

I did not speak of what David did at all. I spoke of how God punished the innocent baby instead of David.

 

So tell us just so that we can make sure we are reading you clearly.

If you killed someone and used his wife for adultery, you would think justice done if God punished your child instead of you.

Right?

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

So tell us just so that we can make sure we are reading you clearly.

If you killed someone and used his wife for adultery, you would think justice done if God punished your child instead of you.

 

Your essentially asking; If your sin is worthy of death, is it justified for God to have an innocent Son bear your punishment? 

My answer is yes.. In fact, that's the fundamental basis of Christianity, an innocent life was given for the sins of everyone who's willing to accept it. David repented and was forgiven, but "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), there's no escaping it. 

 

Edited by Dan56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a contemplative mystic trained in a "Neo Vedantic" tradition.  I was taught to look upon every religion as my sister religion, and learn values from other religions.  I understand that the different religions of the world are different paths to spiritual enlightenment.  I also understand that atheists and agnostics are my spiritual sisters and brothers, and that I have no need to criticize their understanding nor their values.  My spiritual goal is to awaken that inner state that expresses itself in Joy, Understanding, Love, and Compassion.

Hermano Luis

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

Your essentially asking; If your sin is worthy of death, is it justified for God to have an innocent Son bear your punishment? 

My answer is yes.. In fact, that's the fundamental basis of Christianity, an innocent life was given for the sins of everyone who's willing to accept it. David repented and was forgiven, but "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), there's no escaping it. 

 

Interesting.  You are making a making a moral equivalence between the death of King David's child and the death of Jesus, the "Lamb of God."  Taking Christian theology at face value, Jesus was supposed to be sacrificed.  His death and suffering were voluntary.  By contrast, the death of David's child was a punishment for David.  There was nothing voluntary about it at all.  That makes these deaths very different.  The "sins of the fathers" is a different category.  Also quite horrible.  But different.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, emalpaiz said:

I am a contemplative mystic trained in a "Neo Vedantic" tradition.  I was taught to look upon every religion as my sister religion, and learn values from other religions.  I understand that the different religions of the world are different paths to spiritual enlightenment.  I also understand that atheists and agnostics are my spiritual sisters and brothers, and that I have no need to criticize their understanding nor their values.  My spiritual goal is to awaken that inner state that expresses itself in Joy, Understanding, Love, and Compassion.

Hermano Luis

 

Thank you for that beautiful thought.  I expect that this sort of enlightenment is possible, with or without formal theology, with or with out God symbolism.  I truly appreciate your statement.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 2:46 PM, Dan56 said:

Your essentially asking; If your sin is worthy of death, is it justified for God to have an innocent Son bear your punishment? 

My answer is yes.. In fact, that's the fundamental basis of Christianity, an innocent life was given for the sins of everyone who's willing to accept it. David repented and was forgiven, but "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), there's no escaping it. 

 

 

So you think your child should suffer for your sins.

Thanks for showing your corrupted morals.

 

Regards.

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 4:38 PM, emalpaiz said:

I am a contemplative mystic trained in a "Neo Vedantic" tradition.  I was taught to look upon every religion as my sister religion, and learn values from other religions.  I understand that the different religions of the world are different paths to spiritual enlightenment.  I also understand that atheists and agnostics are my spiritual sisters and brothers, and that I have no need to criticize their understanding nor their values.  My spiritual goal is to awaken that inner state that expresses itself in Joy, Understanding, Love, and Compassion.

Hermano Luis

 

Esoteric ecumenists like you should be judging the various belief systems and accepting the good while rejecting and criticizing the evil.

 

For evil to grow, all good people need do is not criticize it.

 

Note above how Dan thinks it ok to punish his child for his evil deeds.

 

If you just ignore such then your morality is as corrupt as his as you are allowing evil thinking to just go unchallenged.

 

You seem to be allowing your soft heart to guide you to immorality.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Esoteric ecumenists like you should be judging the various belief systems and accepting the good while rejecting and criticizing the evil.

 

For evil to grow, all good people need do is not criticize it.

 

Note above how Dan thinks it ok to punish his child for his evil deeds.

 

If you just ignore such then your morality is as corrupt as his as you are allowing evil thinking to just go unchallenged.

 

You seem to be allowing your soft heart to guide you to immorality.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

I found Hermano Luis's statement to be beautiful and uplifting.  Why would you want to criticize that?     :blink:

The way to dispel darkness is to focus on the light.  Nobody sees goodness quite like our Hermano.         :D 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think others, like Gnostic Bishop, are qualified to tell all of us what to believe.  I could easily say, "Gnostic Christians like you should...(insert anything I want)"...but really, since I am not a Gnostic Christian, and I am not you, what right have I to tell you how to live?  At least, what right have I to expect to be listened to anyway, I mean, we all certainly have the right to tell each other what we want, within limits.  But do you honestly expect people to respond to backseat driving their lives, Gnostic Bishop?  I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

For evil to grow, all good people need do is not criticize it.

What makes evil truly grow is good people fixating on an enemy to the point where they grow callouses on their consciences and can no longer see the evils done in the name of defeating their enemies as evil. Part of this process involves the systematic demonization of the enemy. Which seems to be what you are engaged in. Fair warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I found Hermano Luis's statement to be beautiful and uplifting.  Why would you want to criticize that?     :blink:

The way to dispel darkness is to focus on the light.  Nobody sees goodness quite like our Hermano.         :D 

Do you disagree with this quote?

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

 

If we are to do unto others, Jesus' greatest moral tenet, should we not correct those who follow evil moral tenets?

If you have something that you are not thinking correctly on, would you not like to be corrected?

 

I sure would as I do not like to think incorrectly.

 

Regards

DL 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I don't think others, like Gnostic Bishop, are qualified to tell all of us what to believe.  I could easily say, "Gnostic Christians like you should...(insert anything I want)"...but really, since I am not a Gnostic Christian, and I am not you, what right have I to tell you how to live?  At least, what right have I to expect to be listened to anyway, I mean, we all certainly have the right to tell each other what we want, within limits.  But do you honestly expect people to respond to backseat driving their lives, Gnostic Bishop?  I won't.

The qualification is determined by the debate or discussion of the issues at hand and is more likely to be recognized by the lurkers than the debaters.

 

In the issues of killing babies as a moral punishment for what the father does, Dan was for that proposition while I was against it.

 

Jonathan, I he allows me to use his response to the discussion between Dan ands I as an example, gave the qualification to me, in this instance, by his agreement to my view. Building a majority consensus is the only way to really determine who is qualified or not on an issue.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mererdog said:

What makes evil truly grow is good people fixating on an enemy to the point where they grow callouses on their consciences and can no longer see the evils done in the name of defeating their enemies as evil. Part of this process involves the systematic demonization of the enemy. Which seems to be what you are engaged in. Fair warning.

That callous creating goes both ways and mine is quite tough.

 

I basically agree with you but we should recognize that the discussion does not usually end in one of the participants changing his or her mind. It is the hearts and minds of the lurkers and third parties that the fight is for.

 

My discussion with Dan, if I might use that as an example, is not to bring Dan to my view. That will likely never happen as he has invested way to many years to his immoral belief system to drop it.

 

My hope is that those lurkers and other participants in the discussion, who have not invested as much as he has and have an open mind on the issue,  will recognize who has the best moral position and take it.

 

Which do you think the greater evil. For me to ignore Dan's position and not toughen his immoral callous, or allow his position to go un-opposed and perhaps have lurkers accept it from thinking it has no detractors? or a better moral position?

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

Edited by Gnostic Bishop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

The qualification is determined by the debate or discussion of the issues at hand and is more likely to be recognized by the lurkers than the debaters.

 

In the issues of killing babies as a moral punishment for what the father does, Dan was for that proposition while I was against it.

 

Jonathan, I he allows me to use his response to the discussion between Dan ands I as an example, gave the qualification to me, in this instance, by his agreement to my view. Building a majority consensus is the only way to really determine who is qualified or not on an issue.

 

Regards

DL

 

When one of our members expresses a thought which is beautiful, uplifting and inspiring -- there is nothing to "correct" because at that moment, they are not condemning evil.  In particular, when a central part of that uplifting thought, is seeing past differences in perspective.  It is possible to say something uplifting around here, without having to balance it with a condemnation.

A man who defines himself only by what he is opposed to, is never going to find peace.  This is a miserable role model for spreading a philosophy.  If Gnostic Christianity is so wonderful, you don't have to force it on people.  They will steal it from you.  Speaking of which; you are quick to denounce.  A little less of that and more of what you are for would be nice.

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me think of a song..."Instant Karma", John Lennon.  Why ever would you laugh in the face of love?

Edited by cuchulain
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

When one of our members expresses a thought which is beautiful, uplifting and inspiring -- there is nothing to "correct" because at that moment, they are not condemning evil.  In particular, when a central part of that uplifting thought, is seeing past differences in perspective.  It is possible to say something uplifting around here, without having to balance it with a condemnation.

A man who defines himself only by what he is opposed to, is never going to find peace.  This is a miserable role model for spreading a philosophy.  If Gnostic Christianity is so wonderful, you don't have to force it on people.  They will steal it from you.  Speaking of which; you are quick to denounce.  A little less of that and more of what you are for would be nice.

I did put up an O.P. to show my beliefs.

 

I like uplifting thoughts but if one ignores evil, it will grow.

 

Jesus was said to be one of the most uplifting but we all know how that was rewarded.

 

Perhaps if he had been more balance and not hide his condemnations in political correctness, more people would have ended on his side.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Makes me think of a song..."Instant Karma", John Lennon.  Why ever would you laugh in the face of love?

That is not what I did.

 

I just showed that if that was used to fight evil in an indirect way without actually attacking the evil, then it would not be a moral mind behind it.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

I did put up an O.P. to show my beliefs.

 

I like uplifting thoughts but if one ignores evil, it will grow.

 

Jesus was said to be one of the most uplifting but we all know how that was rewarded.

 

Perhaps if he had been more balance and not hide his condemnations in political correctness, more people would have ended on his side.

 

Regards

DL

 

As recorded in the Gospels, Jesus had many disagreeable and venomous things to say -- both with and about -- the Jewish leadership of his day.  Bad things resulted.

Jews have regarded these statements as proof that Jesus was not Meshiah.

Antisemites have taken this as God's approval to hate Jews.  And to persecute.  This has also been a stumbling block to his potential Jewish following.

Some of this New Testament antisemitism wound up poisoning the Koran against Jews.

My take away is that if Jesus had been less condemning, the world would be a less hate filled place; Jesus would have more Jewish followers; and Jews and Muslims would be on much better terms now.

No, I don't think there was a historic Jesus.  What ever the source; these condemnations have been destructive beyond calculation.  You think Jesus should have been more condemning?  Things aren't bad enough?

:blink:     :rolleyes:   :whist:

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many see Jesus as not condemning or judgemental due to phrases like this. "Go and sin no more".

I see it as judgemental without condemnation. Jesus was putting forgiveness above retribution.

You seem to give whatever Jesus did or said as having some real effects in our world.

 

If anything he said was taken seriously it would be by Christians and you might have noted how few Christians care about what Jesus said. If they did, they would not be a homophobic and misogynous creed and would certainly not have used all the murders that they did to further Christianity.

 

Christians use Jesus as their scapegoat and nothing more. If they believed him to be real, they would walk the Christian or biblical talk. They do not.

  

Regards

DL

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Many see Jesus as not condemning or judgemental due to phrases like this. "Go and sin no more".

I see it as judgemental without condemnation. Jesus was putting forgiveness above retribution.

You seem to give whatever Jesus did or said as having some real effects in our world.

 

If anything he said was taken seriously it would be by Christians and you might have noted how few Christians care about what Jesus said. If they did, they would not be a homophobic and misogynous creed and would certainly not have used all the murders that they did to further Christianity.

 

Christians use Jesus as their scapegoat and nothing more. If they believed him to be real, they would walk the Christian or biblical talk. They do not.

  

Regards

DL

 

 

 

The many would be mistaken.  I read the book for myself.

No doubt that is what you see.  I see something different.

2,000 years of antisemitism, family histories and personal experience.  Yes.  It means something in the real world.

I read the book for myself.  I take those words seriously.  Including the mean, nasty words.

Sure they would.  Jesus came to fulfill the Law.  All of it.  Including the awful bits in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Alright.  Full sarcasm mode.  How nice that after 2,000 years of getting it wrong; you finally came along to set things right.  Please, I read the book.

 

While I have your ear.  You're the one who likes to condemn people who don't preach against evil.  Jesus never said anything to over turn Leviticus.  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."  Perhaps if he had, a lot of innocent blood might not have been shed.  The murders continue because on this point, Jesus was silent.     :( 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2016 at 4:48 PM, Gnostic Bishop said:

So you think your child should suffer for your sins.

 

No, that's why I oppose abortion :). God had a rule "Touch not mine anointed" (Psalm105:15 & 1 Chronicles 16:22), which was an order not to physically harm them. and the reason David never killed King Saul when he had the opportunity,. Saul was appointed by God as was David. I personally think David should have bore the death penalty, but since he was anointed king, God upheld the law by taking his son instead.. And imo, that was probably a greater punishment to David than losing his own life. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The many would be mistaken.  I read the book for myself.

No doubt that is what you see.  I see something different.

2,000 years of antisemitism, family histories and personal experience.  Yes.  It means something in the real world.

I read the book for myself.  I take those words seriously.  Including the mean, nasty words.

Sure they would.  Jesus came to fulfill the Law.  All of it.  Including the awful bits in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

Alright.  Full sarcasm mode.  How nice that after 2,000 years of getting it wrong; you finally came along to set things right.  Please, I read the book.

 

While I have your ear.  You're the one who likes to condemn people who don't preach against evil.  Jesus never said anything to over turn Leviticus.  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."  Perhaps if he had, a lot of innocent blood might not have been shed.  The murders continue because on this point, Jesus was silent.     :( 

I have read the bible and have judged that what the scribes put into some of the Jesus' mouth is quite immoral and yes, he was quite silent on many things that he could have helped mankind with. Slavery, gays, witches and women.

I do not mind what they put in the more Eastern Jesus' mouth though. I find those teachings to be helpful.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

No, that's why I oppose abortion :). God had a rule "Touch not mine anointed" (Psalm105:15 & 1 Chronicles 16:22), which was an order not to physically harm them. and the reason David never killed King Saul when he had the opportunity,. Saul was appointed by God as was David. I personally think David should have bore the death penalty, but since he was anointed king, God upheld the law by taking his son instead.. And imo, that was probably a greater punishment to David than losing his own life. 

 

So if your God cannot punish the guilty one, you have no problem with his punishing an innocent one.

Quite the morals you are showing us.

You are proof positive that your religion has corrupted your morals because if a human judge did what you condone in God, you would be the first to condemn that judge.

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

So if your God cannot punish the guilty one, you have no problem with his punishing an innocent one.

Quite the morals you are showing us.

You are proof positive that your religion has corrupted your morals because if a human judge did what you condone in God, you would be the first to condemn that judge.

But we're not talking about a human judge here are we... The punishment was against David... And since your a pacifist, I'm guessing you would have preferred a human judge who would have conveniently overlooked the murder of Uriah? Brown nosing murderers is hardly taking a superior moral position. Peace, love, and understanding is a warm & fuzzy cliche, but its not too practical when there's a killer in the crowd :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now